About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
. to deal with china, it is the fundamental problem of american foreign policy right now. the difficulty is chinese history is totally different. we have been secure through most of our history from other countries, the impact of foreign societies on us. the chinese state has always been surrounded by a multiplicity of states. the management of all barriers has been a principal necessity of chinese foreign policy. we have done it on a pragmatic basis. the chinese have learned to take a longer, strategic view because one cannot decide the outcome of any issue unless you look at it in a longer-term. but these societies have two different approaches. it is an ever evolving situation. china is now rising country. we have the status quo countries similar to germany and england and therefore the likelihood is something like that might occur again. remember, china is a country that is returning to what it believes it has always been, namely the center of asian affairs. but it is inevitable that the rise in china will impinge on the united states. there are a number of things we need to keep in
under control. your statement is not accurate. >> let me go back to the policy questions, foreign policy question about the situation recently with the north africa. american taxpayers billions of dollars -- it was a big issue when we saw the scenes will see in a moment in egypt and the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. a radical islamist group attacked the u.s. embassy and tore down the american flag. in the same day, in libya, an assault on the consulate resulted in the death of the american ambassador christopher stevens and three others. these images echo the worst -- the recall those moments in 1979 with the taking of american hostages at the embassy in iran. u.s. taxpayers as an enormous 1.6 billion doris to egypt, -- $1.6 billion to egypt, which is now run by a former member of the muslim brotherhood. should the u.s. give up foreign aid to these nations, mr. sadler? >> no. not now, we have a fledgling government being formed a. with egypt withholding funds, the editorial board agreed is time for us to stop the old on that aid. it is in our best interests to stay involved.
. prior to that, he led the publican -- republican feature. he also has served as foreign policy adviser to senator john mccain. all of you see him regularly on fox news sunday and the fox news channel. i met him in 1981 when he was a very young assistant professor at the university of pennsylvania. the question that i would like to pose for each of you, and i will start with governor what does this through feel about the leadership styles of mitt romney and president obama? >> probably not much. >> ok, will this panel is over. [laughter] >> you could extrapolate a few things from president obama's first term that may be instructive. he is not the manager. he does out of a history of managing things. you bring in a lot of good, well trained people and give them tasks and try to lead a government. in the case of mitt romney, who has been a governor, a business guy. he has run the olympics. i think his attitude would be efficiency. i will come in and look at running governments, like a business, which is not always the right answer because government is not a business. you should always lo
on foreign policy. the war in afghanistan is drawing to a close. the plans have been laid out for troops to return home. what is an acceptable outcome to the war in afghanistan, and what is our responsibility to achieve that outcome after u.s. troops returned? >> we have always had difficult returned with describing that, and as a result we need to get our troops out of afghanistan as quickly as we can. >> before the president's timeline? >> it is time to bring our troops home and stop spending $2 billion a week in afghanistan. we need that money. >> the united states does not have responsibility any longer? >> we cannot rebuild afghanistan for ever. we cannot do that. having unrealistic goals and spending more money is the wrong approach. i want to say on this, all three of my brothers served in the military. our service members are incredible. they will do anything we ask of them. they work hard, they are resourceful, but that means we owe them an obligation to put them out in harm's way when we have clear goals in mind, when it is clear what we're going to do, how we will accomplish i
-- the foreign policy, there was a spike when mitt romney went abroad. i believe aj invited us here and our job is to keep everyone here on the panel on this. >> think you're a very interesting. as our panelists make their presentation, maybe it least two items i thought would be interested to adjust -- the very interesting article and book out now by sasha eisenberg about the fact that the press cannot keep up with political consultants and social that parking experts. reporters basically are way behind the curve in this campaign. we think that is an interesting topic to take a look at. as well as the fact that in a wave of reporters, my impression is it looks like both candidates have succeeded for the most part in talking over the press, especially the traveling press, and making them almost irrelevant to the campaign. let us start off with amy davidson. >> can everybody hear me? i will start by addressing what he does talk about a little bit. even in the title of the panel, is this any way to cover a campaign? there is somewhat of a note of this may which i think -- dismay, which i think a
clear on foreign policy, and there has been a lack of leadership. in 2009, there were protesters in iran. we heard nothing from our government. in 2011, the government finally stepped forward and we saw some sanctions put in place. i am happy to see european countries have also stepped forward and into a limited sanctions against iran. but we need to have a strong administration who is going to make it clear that a line needs to be drawn. we have never heard from this government. we have never heard them say that iran should not be in reaching uranium. we need to make clear if we are going to be leaders, if the united states of america is going to be a leader in foreign policy and keep stability in this world as has been our mission in the past, then we need to make it clear. >> sen. fischer, thank you. >> i'm not running for president so i do not want to disagree with president obama or governor romney on iran, but we cannot allow them to acquire nuclear weapons. but what happens afterwards? they do not call it the persian gulf for nothing. we got worked up when we launched cruise missi
with something, and you get touched on some positions. how would you describe foreign policy? how should america face the world? >> we should be the shining begin on the hill. but our military interventions, are going in, and we are determining -- we are replacing one dictator with another dictator. foreign aid is money spent on dictators. it is not spent on people in other countries. it is spent on propping up other governments. we are funding the insurgents in syria, and one-quarter of the insurgents in syria are supposed to be al qaeda. did we not do this in afghanistan? did we not bankroll osama bin laden? what we ought to have learned is that these military interventions make enemies to the united states, people who are affected by this. these drones strikes, yes, we hit the targets, but we wipe out another quarter block. we kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians living in these countries that we are ostensibly there to help. we are just continuing to make more and more enemies. it is no surprise that the unrest in the middle east is occurring right now. i would get out of our embassi
. that needs to be made clear. we have an administration that has foreign policy that is in confusion. it is not clear to our allies. in 2009 we saw student , and no word from this administration. in 2011 the united states stepped forward with a sanction. i am happy european nations have stepped forward with a sanction, but we need to be clear with our ally, israel, and this is not their problem. it is not just a problem in that region. this is a problem for the world. it is estimated in three years the iranians are going to be able to reach the united states. this is our concern, and we have heard nothing from the sun ministration -- from this administration with regards to iran enriching. there is a lack of clarity. i want america to remain a stabilizing force in in the world. we need to have thought, but with lack of leadership, lack of clarification, when our allies do not know what we are doing common we have lost that. >> thank you. senator kerry. >> this is a confusing time after the arab spring. it is hard to find out what is going on in the middle east. they do not call it th
decisions, especially those made of the domestic and foreign policies. in the united states and in europe, their voices are heard. they constitute 99% of the society. the human add ethical value are sacrificed in order to win growth and the willingness to listen to the demands of the people has become only to the time of election. the current world order is discriminatory and based on injustice. distinguished friends and colleagues, what should be done and what is the way of the current situation? there is no doubt that the world is in need of a new order and a fresh way of thinking. and although which man is recognized as god's supreme creation, enjoying material and spiritual equalities and possessing divine nature filled with in the -- in order tor survive, human dignity and believe in the universal happiness and perfection. three, an order which is after peace, security, and welfare for all walks of life around the globe. four, all that is founded upon trust and kindness, closer to each other, they must love people. five, a just and fair order in which everybody is equal before law an
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9